If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will need to register and pay
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. Unregistered visitors can leave comments on the articles, your comments will not be visible until a moderator has approved it.

I think we're probably not as far off as you might think. The exemption of religious organizations seems like an obvious point to me, but I understand the hesitation with small family businesses. It just seems that, for instance, a small mom and pop operation offers a unique situation, in that owners personal lives are often completely commingled with their business. So, forcing accommodation in this case would be forcing one to personally accommodate a behavior they might find in direct contradiction with their faith.

That's a situation where an accomodation makes complete sense (to me at least), but would just be difficult to figure out how to effectively legislate.

I agree. Besides, the pull from the hard left would be that's it's still allowing "hate" and the hard right would seek to keep expanding it. So instead, we'll have one side " winning" and one side "losing" and the polarization continues. It's so frustrating to literally see it happening, but no way to change it.

50 years ago most people thought Homosexuality was a horrible sin and not accepted...and even against the law in some places. Now it's accepted.

Whats going to be accepted 50 years from now?

Have we gotten "smarter" over these 50 years...or just more ignorant...

I doubt that the victimization of a child will be accepted in 50 yrs. It has nothing to do with how smart we are as a society. We have come to the realization that homosexuality isn't evil and won't be the end of civilization.

And, yet you have the research I provided that suggests otherwise. Not saying it's around the corner or even highly likely, but cultures that accepted it did so based on the belief that it was not victimization but simply an extension of affection. The researches that hypothesize that sexual abuse of males who grow up to identify as gay may in-fact be healthy probably don't feel like accepting that practice would end society either.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

That. Is. Awesome.

"Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15-16 (NRSV)

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

I think that's hilarious because I arrived at something very similar through a torturous process of analysis and debate. But all I did was re-invent the wheel. I could have saved myself a whole lot of thinking and writing if I had just looked up the law in the first place.
I feel kind of foolish.

So in comparison to current law, I am 33% more progressive, by proposing a threshold ot 10 employees, instead of 15.

So let's add sexual orientation to Title VII. I'm happy.

I should have probably read it closer too.....As long as it excepts small business/religious institutions I'm kosher with it too.

(I'm not quite as bull-headed as some might think from my comments in this thread)

I Do Not think it should be a law. I think the At-Will doctrine needs protected. I agree 100% with current Title VII...all of it. I don't think sexual ORIENTATION should be included. If that means it's LEGALLY acceptable...then so be it. Do I think it's ACCEPTABLE...No. I don't think it's FAIR either. People get fired for less than being Gay all the time. Is that FAIR? NO. But life isn't always fair. People get fired for NO REASON at all. Again. I think the At-Will Doctrine needs to be protected.

Originally Posted by hskrdavey

Are you asking if I think being gay is wrong? My personal conviction is yes. I have that right to an opinion whether you are offended of it or not. If my son becomes gay, I would express how I think it's wrong and my opinion of it but I would certainly still love him as I always have and accept it...I also think Adultery is wrong. Does it happen all around me all the time...Yep..Doesn't mean I'm Adultery-phobic or think it has to be discriminated against. Just don't believe it should be in the category of "Civil Rights". I think the article above articulates that well.

Originally Posted by hskrdavey

I should have probably read it closer too.....As long as it excepts small business/religious institutions I'm kosher with it too.

(I'm not quite as bull-headed as some might think from my comments in this thread)

That's a situation where an accomodation makes complete sense (to me at least), but would just be difficult to figure out how to effectively legislate.

I disagree. On the train ride in this morning, I had a completely independent idea that we could just exempt employers with fewer than a certain number of employees, say hypothetically 15. I think I am going to call my legislator this morning with my idea.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to read the last 12 hours of posts in this thread, but I am sure there was nothing important in there.

"The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II

I disagree. On the train ride in this morning, I had a completely independent idea that we could just exempt employers with fewer than a certain number of employees, say hypothetically 15. I think I am going to call my legislator this morning with my idea.

By the way, I haven't had the opportunity to read the last 12 hours of posts in this thread, but I am sure there was nothing important in there.

Enough, Ron Brown has his priorities and Nebraska Football is about third. He wants to be fired for his homosexual beliefs and will keep this issue in the forefront.
TO, give him what he wants and lets move on, this issue has no purpose in Nebraska Football. Ron can have his own Church platform to preach from!

Enough, Ron Brown has his priorities and Nebraska Football is about third. He wants to be fired for his homosexual beliefs and will keep this issue in the forefront.
TO, give him what he wants and lets move on, this issue has no purpose in Nebraska Football. Ron can have his own Church platform to preach from!

Enough, Ron Brown has his priorities and Nebraska Football is about third. He wants to be fired for his homosexual beliefs and will keep this issue in the forefront.
TO, give him what he wants and lets move on, this issue has no purpose in Nebraska Football. Ron can have his own Church platform to preach from!